Carter: Generalities Best We'll Get From The Summit

The Orlando Sentinel: Are you optimistic that anything substantial will come out of the coming summit between President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev?

Jimmy Carter: Substantial? I think yes. Specific? I would say no. Substantial would be just for the world to know that the two leaders understand each other and they might make some tentative steps toward accommodations -- say on nuclear arms control that I would put on the top of the priority list -- then relay their determination to make some progress, long overdue progress I might say, to the negotiators in Geneva.

This is an extraordinary summit in that there is at this last moment still no agreement even on the agenda. This is extraordinary because in the past when an American president and the leader of the Soviet Union met, the agenda was specific. They both agreed to discuss the same subjects and they both had the same goal in mind. I don't think that's the case this time.

Q: Some people have talked about the possibility of the two leaders reaching an agreement in principle about arms control. Do you think that is possible?

A: Yes, if you are talking about general principles. I am sure they'll both be willing to say we intend to have continuing negotiations to lead to an arms control agreement.

Q: But as far as a trade-off between strategic nuclear weapons and Star Wars, do you see that happening?

A: Not unless President Reagan changes his policy. I have always thought that this so-called Star Wars proposal was ill-advised -- not good for our country and not good for the rest of the world. And until this moment, at least, President Reagan has placed it at the top of his priority list to be maintained.

I have been traveling a good bit in recent weeks. I've just come back from brief visits to places like Hong Kong, Bangkok, Katmandu and have seen the news reports out of China and India. It has been an almost unanimous endorsement of the basic proposals that Gorbachev has put forward, though not the fine print, which is all inclined toward the Soviet Union's benefit. A 50 percent cut in offensive weapons is a very attractive proposal. A willingness to forgo deployment of destructive weapons in space is also very attractive to the world public. A promise to adhere to all existing nuclear arms agreements, including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, is a very attractive proposition. These are the things that Gorbachev has put forward so far.

The specifics, predictably, are inclined to benefit the Soviet Union, but it is a good basis for negotiations. But I think the strategic defense initiative is an obstacle to progress even on these basic propositions of drastic reductions of offensive weapons.

Q: It has been reported that you, along with Presidents Nixon and Ford, will meet with President Reagan before the summit. Has any date been set?

A: No. I don't think such a meeting is going to take place.

Q: Have you been contacted by people in the White House?

A: Yes. President Reagan wrote a letter to me while I was in Nepal and I read it when I got back. But I have read in news reports since then that President Nixon was not going, and I won't be able to go to Washington either. I think what is going to happen in lieu of that is a briefing by White House officials of the former presidents -- the factors that are involved in the agenda on an up-to-date basis and President Reagan's intentions -- with possibly a follow-up telephone call between President Reagan and his predecessors.

Q: Earlier this year you said you could not think of a single domestic or foreign policy achievement of the Reagan administration. Have you reassessed that statement?

A: I didn't say that about domestic achievements because I think that President Reagan can enjoy at least part of the credit for reduced inflation rates. But I think that President Reagan will leave a legacy, unless drastic changes take place in the balance of his term, that will be a serious affliction on future presidents and on the people of this nation.

I'm referring to the doubling of the total national debt in just five years and the change of our country from the greatest creditor nation when I left office just a brief time ago until now at the end of this year it will be the greatest debtor nation on Earth. The agricultural community has been savaged beyond any degree since the great Depression years. I think that these kinds of things will hurt President Reagan's historical reputation in the years ahead.

In foreign policy, I really can't think of any achievement that he has had. I think the situation in Central America and the Middle East has deteriorated. He has had an almost non-existent policy on civil rights at home, human rights abroad and has made no progress unlike all of his predecessors -- Democratic and Republican -- in arms control.